When undergoing its interactions with other countries, the state can't be separated from a series of regulations that limit and direct the behavior of states, because the state is in the international system which is also inhabited by other states. There are a variety of containers and concepts which present regulations, laws, and procedures to be performed by the state and affect its behavior. One of the concepts is an international regime, as a set of principles, norms, rules, and also the decision-making procedures among actors who have the same expectations to a problem (Krasner, 1983). The principle in question is related to the belief in fact, causation, and honesty; norm is a standard of behavior that is manifested as the rights and obligations; regulation is guidance and a clear and specific prohibition about the action taken; while the decision-making procedure is a procedure that must be taken in implementing collective choice.
There are three things can be observed and categorized as a change. The first is a change to regulation and decision-making procedures in the regime. Principles and norms of the regime remains the same, but the its practical elements changing. Changes in the lower level is not changing and still in line with the principles and previous norm.
The second change is in terms of the principles and norms which are then described as a change of the regime itself. When the fundamentals of a regime -- the principles and norms -- become different from before, it can be said that the regime itself is changing. Changes to this regime can lead to a change towards more practical elements such as rules and values.
The third is regime weakening. The regime is said to be reduced if its norms, principles, rules, and decision-making procedures are no longer coherent or if the context is practically no longer consistent with the principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures.
With the principles, norms, rules, and procedures of this decision, the regime is also referred to as intervening variables between the basic causal factors with outcome in the form of behavior. (Krasner, 1983).
Oran Young, Raymond Hopkins and Donald Puchala have relatively the same opinion with Krasner, that there are indeed inseparable relationship between international regime with the international actors behavior. To view the results as a result of the regime and its relationship with basic causal variables, there are at least two different views, namely Grotian perspective and structural realism.
Grotian perspective showing the views of Hopkins, Puchala, and Young in regime as an entity which can penetrate social interaction. Some causal of regime according to this perspective is the importance and power that blend with the norms, customs, and the knowledge that all play in the regime. These causal factors may be manifested in individual behavior, certain bureaucracy, and international organizations and countries.
Structural realism perspective have a more thorough view of the regime. Realist perspective does not enter the international regime. According to the realist view, the regime will only appear in certain circumstances which have the characteristics of the failure of decision-making by individuals to safeguard and secure the desired outcome. Arguments presented by Stein, Keohan, Jervis, Ruggie, Charles Lipson and Cohen put pressure on conventional realist perspective. They rejected the narrow structural analysis which positioning a direct relationship between the change in basic causal variables with related behaviors and outcomes as well as rejecting the usefulness of the regime's concept.
Meanwhile, a different view comes from Susan Strange. Stange precisely defines the international regime as a misleading concepts or concepts that actually obscure the relationship between economy and power.
... when their brains are actually saying about the world and its perspectives? For Example: as my partner, maybe? ahem ahem ... dahliiing, where is the damn monkey? He's been tearing my umbrella ... whowaa ... ) |
| It turns out, putting an unrelated image with the current topic, for me, it's just fine. Ehhehe... In this photo: my ugly private teacher. Here, it serves as a sweetener, mmm...well, a type of visual refreshment. He's my political guru, as well as an expert in obstetrics and gynecology, particularly in the science of my womb. Hooray...  
|
In regard as intervening variables, there are five factors which later become the basic determinant causal as described by Krasner, they are the ethical egoistic, political power, norms and principles, traditions and customs, and knowledge.
Ethical Egoistic explains that the ego becomes important in determining the regime because basically every person has ego. A selfish person will pay attention to the others behavior only if it will affect what becomes his interests and his ego. Young believes there are three conditions in which the regime formed by the ego. The first is spontaneously from the expectations unification of various existing measures. The second is negotiated whereby the regime established by the treaty explicitly, and the third is deliberately created by the external parties intervention.
The second is political power. Political forces to be one determinant factor because it is used to achieve optimal outcomes for the overall system. Its power is used to achieve the common good and promote certain values of certain actors.
The third is the norm and principle. This affects the regime in most of the subject matter, but it does not always relate to the subject matter, it can also appreciated as an explanation of the creation, persistence and disappearance of the regime. In international relations, the most important principle is sovereignty. Hedley Bull refers to sovereignty as a constitutive principle of the current international system.
The fourth is the tradition and customs which refers to the habit of the usual patterns of basic behavior in everyday life and a longstanding tradition.
The fifth is knowledge, where knowledge -- which has the effect of freedom in the international system -- must be accepted widely by policy makers.
In short, the regime is an entity composed of principles, norms, rules, and procedures of decision-making among the actors, in which the actor must be incorporated in an agreement on this regime.
An example of the regime is ASEAN, if what is seen is the ASEAN Way. ASEAN -- which consists of structured and systemized countries -- of course, can't be regarded as the regime. But if what is seen is ASEAN Way -- which includes the principles and norms of ASEAN as a non-intervention policy and non-armed engagement in addressing the ASEAN's problems, also with the rules and procedures in decision-making -- then ASEAN can be regarded as a regime: ASEAN regime.
***
[CZ-lacalifusa121814]
No comments:
Post a Comment